The Epiphany Phase

When I was detailing the landscape of our contemporary sexual marketplace in Navigating the SMP there comes a point on women’s SMV (sexual market value) progression where she becomes cognizant of her SMV decline and impending date with The Wall. Generally this occurs in women’s late 20’s and possibly early 30’s but as a rough estimate on the graph I provided in that post, this is the point of transition at which women realize their decaying capacity to hypergamously compete with women in their sexual primes, and the point at which men are beginning to realize their own increasing SMV potential. I dubbed this intersection the point of Comparative SMV. It’s also important to note that this phase conveniently coincides with the social convention of women’s mythical biological clock.(more on this later).

The Epiphany Phase

I’ve previously described this phase as a parallel to men’s feminine-redefined midlife crisis. This is a precarious time for women, usually the years between 28 and 30, where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain to her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”)

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.

The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it.

The Shifting Point

Case in point Hephzibah Anderson, author of the book Chastened, The Unexpected Story of My Year Without Sex. Here we have a graphic insight into the inner workings of women’s rationalization at the crossroads of acknowledging her decaying SMV, the need for long term male security, provisioning and intimacy, and realizing the necessity for a new psychological paradigm to justify her shift in behavior.

It’s easy to dismiss this interview as just another 3 women allowing their hamsters to colate on camera, but when you view this clip in a red pill context a surprising amount of information is revealed about the Epiphany Phase women experience.

We begin here with the now clichéd Kate Bolick Brand® former boyfriend-in-love regretfulness as the catalyst for Hephzibah’s newly gained insight. He’s serendipitously buying a ring for his new fiancé and the Alpha Widow mojo takes root in her psyche, “some girl found him valuable enough to marry.” She then proceeds through the predictable, “I’m 30 and need to reprioritize my life” boilerplate that’s made more than a few women authors a good deal of money writing for The Atlantic.

As I noted earlier, this phase also coincides with a woman’s sharp decline in fertility and childbearing capacity, so the instinctual urgency to breed, reinforced by the myth of the biological clock contributes to this internal crisis. All of this coalesces into some amazing feats of rationalization hamster acrobatics.

I’d thought those thoughts once or twice, but it would never have occurred to me that I’d actually go ahead and voluntarily eject sex from my life. It took a bizarre serendipity, a torrid affair and a chance anecdote to make me realize that the kind of sex I was supposed to be cool with as a post-feminist, 21st-century Western woman — a casual sort of intimacy without intimacy — was not working for me.

Better late than never right? Unfortunately no. While I’m sure this realization will seem ennobling to the more moralistically predisposed mindset, what you see now is the expectation of a new appreciation for her insight which was prompted by her need, not a genuine introspective. It’s kind of ironic in that the Chastening Hephzibah is so proud of was prompted by her own necessity.

All right, in most circumstances it’s still just about required for life’s perpetuation, but we can lead perfectly healthy and, indeed, happy existences without nooky, whoopee or bonking. People can — and do — go decades without sex. Some live their entire lives without it.

Side Note: In Girl-World a woman can electively forego sex for an entire year and it’s recognized as a sacrifice worthy of writing a book to be published by a major print publisher, while the only way a man can be recognized for his 40 year celibacy is when he enters a fitness center and guns down 7 women in a pilates class. As I’ve stated before, when a woman tells you “I don’t understand why sex is sooooo important to guys“, she’s telling you the literal truth.

Elizabeth I was known as the Virgin Queen, and there was nothing metaphorical about the title, history assures us.

Robert Dudley and a long list of the Queen’s confirmed lovers disagree. What follows here is an attempt by Hephzibah’s rationalization engine to affirm what she’d like to think is her radical decision to go abstinent – plenty of luminaries from the past have gone without and lived perfectly fine lives. What she’s in denial about is the necessity of sex in a mature human experience. Sex is the glue that holds a relationship together; without sex a woman becomes a man’s mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, but not his lover, and certainly not his wife. Deemphasizing the importance of sex, actively desexualizing yourself in the hopes that it will make you more sexually arousing is an effort in self-defeat.

What follows here is yet another overwritten self-examination of a woman facing the Wall and attempting to reconcile a past of eschewing offers of genuine intimacy with (albeit probably beta) guys and her own hypergamous impulses during her 20’s. When a pre-Wall Anderson makes a conscious effort to remove sex from the equation in order to bring her more “clarity” about a man’s long term value what she’s doing is attempting to dissociate hypergamy from that process. In doing so she devalues the important sexual aspect of a relationship and turns off the men she’d probably fit well with because she believes that sex is the foil in her past failures, not herself, not her ego-investments, not the delusions the feminine imperative has saddled her with. Sex isn’t her problem, her innate hypergamy will eventually reveal this to her, but it’s how she’s been doing it and the late hour at which she’s come to her “new” epiphany with all of its urgency.

Hephzibah is easy pickings for the manosphere Men with a bent for shaming women about riding the Cock Carousel (she even alludes to this in the article). That’s a given, but it’s not the operative issue I’m on about here. What her story illustrates for us is the psychological machinations behind the reconciliation of her unfulfilled hypergamy and her need for future intimacy, security and provisioning.

For red pill, Game-aware Men, this is a supremely important stage in women’s maturation to consider. A woman in the Epiphany Phase is looking for a “fresh start” for a much more visceral reason than some newly inspired sense of self. This motivation prompts all kinds of behavioral and social conventions to facilitate a man’s commitment to forgiving her past indiscretions. As Roosh has pointed out more than once, it’s women in this phase of life (or the mothers of women in this phase) who most vocally complain about men’s lack of interest in committing to them. As Hephzibah is painfully aware of, women in their peak SMV years don’t complain about a dearth of marriageable men– “Man Up” is the anthem of women in the Epiphany Phase.

186 responses to “The Epiphany Phase”

“As I’ve stated before, when a woman tells you “I don’t understand why sex is sooooo important to guys“, she’s telling you the literal truth.”

“Sex” is the one thing a Man wants more than anything, will do almost anything to get, makes millions, and acquires power, in order to get.

I recently read a Jack Nicholson interview where the 70 year old grandmaster said: “If men are honest then everything they do in life, and everywhere they go, is really for a chance to meet women.”

It’s really “Sex” that Man kills for, and dies for. Yet – “Sex” is “NOTHING” to your average girl. She’s walking around all day with a vagina – she’s got the sex, and a willing cock whenever she needs it.

Meanwhile, “Resources” and “Access to Resources” are the one thing a Girl wants more than anything -and “can’t get on her own.”

The greatest liar is the Girl who a Guy who says she wouldn’t be happier if her man were “a little more rich, a little more powerful, a little more famous, had a little more social status.”

Yet for a Guy pursuing resources comes naturally. He does it all day long. What’s the big deal, he thinks.

I recently saw a girl I had pedestalized for several years. She lives in Europe and turned 30 this year. It must have been a combination of becoming game-aware this past year and the rapidly-advancing wall, because the beauty I thought she possessed had faded dramatically. I could see the lines on her face, her skin had lost its glow and her curves weren’t what I remembered. Thanks for teaching us the concept of SMV Rollo. I feel like I dodged a bullet.

I recently learned that the conservative philosopher, Russell Kirk, married his wife when he was 42 and she was 17. I used to believe the fem-centric notion that a substantial age difference (~10 years) wasn’t right. A 25-year difference sounds awesome to me now and from what I’ve read, their marriage was great.

As i’ve been saying as of late.. a woman trying to retcon her reasoning for why she’s still single when hitting the wall and all of a sudden valuing commitment over enjoying the single party life she previously enjoyed is not value at all.

I have coined the phrase “MILF-life Crisis” to describe this phenomena…I think it is accurate and highly effective when arguing with some harpie about how baaad men’s mid-life crises are…use it as you see fit, gents.

“Side Note: In Girl-World a woman can electively forego sex for an entire year and it’s recognized as a sacrifice worthy of writing a book to be published by a major print publisher, while the only way a man can be recognized for his 40 year celibacy is when he enters a fitness center and guns down 7 women in a pilates class.”

I’d like to add that most women can electively forgo it by choice, knowing they can if they so choose, jump off the celibacy train at any time the urge becomes too great.

There’s a reason the letters i and n precede celibacy in most men’s cases. And they wonder why they might go nuts.

I’d like to point out that Hephzibah Anderson has a Man Jaw with a sprinkle of Cleft Chin, which knock her down a few points on the smv scale. She is most likely suffering from an overinflated perceived estimate of her own smv based on the Alpha pump and dumps back in her 20’s. This is a big problem among many women in her age group, the failure to reestimate their real time smv. They remain delusional thinking they still “have it” because alphas willingly still sex them up, but won’t accept the beta provider and remain in an aging endless cycle until all options run dry completely. Then they rationalize it all and blame men for failing to Man Her Up!

“I want to wait with you. You’re special. You’re not like all those other guys.”

“Don’t want no playas.”

She used to like jocks, or meathead gym rats, or local garage band members. Now, she’s decided that she’s really attracted to pudgy accountants.

She has a track record of failed relationships and ONSs, but now has decided she wants to cook and clean for a guy.

She’s a failure in some other major area of her life: she’s still living at home with her parents at age 26, or she never finished her degree, or she still works a shitty, dead end, low paying job. Until recently she was aimless and directionless, but has a newfound purpose.

She is a recent Christianity convert. In a month she has gone from total atheist to attending services three times a week, teaching Sunday school and speaking in tongues.

I suppose the male equivalent of this would be a man who was a multi-millionaire at 22 who blew all his money on supermodels and finds himself broke at 35. Now with no money in the bank and a $20/hr factory job, he’s suddenly willing to consider the ordinary women he ignored back when he was rich and could pull 9s and 10s.

I’m sure such a man would find plenty of women willing to give him a chance now that he’s “learned from his mistakes” and “found himself”. Even though he wouldn’t be able to give them any expensive gifts or take them on exotic vacations at luxurious resorts, like he did for his previous girlfriends. But hey, those relationships were just about sex. Nothing like the deeper connection and commitment he’s looking for now…

Imagine instead a schoolgirl, smart, tall and beautiful, physically mature and with an understanding of people.

– The little boys that talk nonsense at her, trying to build rapport. Not interesting, but better than the others who wince at her presence.

– The ‘cocky’ guys who spout lewd inanities at other girls, who squeal with excitement in turn. No interest. Don’t even talk to me.

– The teachers, cops and adults who think their authority gives them a right to a conversation. Proving to themselves they can influence her and earn her attention.

– The smart kids who think by telling her what she is thinking and what she wants they can earn what the others have failed, attention and intimacy, when really they are no different.

So she floats over all of them, from their perspective, thinking about her own goals, as we all do, fantasizing about earning $10k for a single night of sex, or becoming a princess in some other way, like men imagining themselves as kings, wondering how to use her power and who to behave well for.

Empathy is empowering- you don’t need to apply it to the vulnerable to feel better about yourself. Understanding high value individuals is a more rewarding epiphany..

In truth, the heroine has realized that the men she fucked in her 20s were just that: fucks. That’s all they wanted from her, even if she wanted more than that from most of them.

She looks back on her life and realizes to her horror that she was little more than a life support system for an easily-obtained vagina to the men she gave her most valuable commodity.

She looks back on her 20s and realizes she is a failure. She has nothing to show for the last 10 years of her life: no education, no savings, no decent career, no husband, no children, no real accomplishments, no skills other than knowing how to give a serviceable blowjob.

She now has decided she wants to Distinguish Herself. She wants a husband. She wants to find The Deeper Meaning To Her Life.

“She is most likely suffering from an overinflated perceived estimate of her own smv … This is a big problem among many women in her age group, the failure to reestimate their real time smv. They remain delusional”

Truth.

If you watch the video, one of the hosts says something like:

“There’s so much sex in our society, and so little romance”

and the author agrees, saying: “by putting it slightly out of reach, you savor the journey there”

So let’s get this straight: She was a “late-starter”… hence as a young woman she invested highly in her own self-perceived “purity”…. then she falls in love with a dude and it fails to go the distance… so she spends the rest of her twenties fucking whomever she feels like… then she runs into her lost love buying a ring for his new girl… and this horrifies her so much that she decides to make a return to the holier-than-thou self-identification pattern of her youth, a show of pure fingers-in-the-ears denial in an attempt to rehabilitate her ego. Because if a good man can see her as the “pure girl” she once was (and wishes to become again), her value goes back up.

So now, passing 30, as she has entered a steady, inescapable decline in her attractiveness, her solution to getting what she wants is to “put it (sex) slightly out of reach. ”

The guys she wants aren’t going to go for that. They’re gonna next her.

IMO the only guys who’ll go for that are Blue Pill Gobblers… the type of guys who, it will seem, are ready to give her the “romance” she and her ilk now say they want… but in time, oh just TRUST me, she will come to see him as obsequious, and her LOATHING for him will germinate.

I would like to know something: women complain of a lack of “romance” these days…

Now, assuming that “romance” is a shared thing, a two-way street, not simply a solipsistic sucking hole…

Well, yes. We men forget sometimes how important the status of marriage is to a woman; the status that marriage gives her. Even having been married once and then divorced elevates her status even if she never secures commitment from a man again. Because she was able to do it once, it forever solidifies her value. “I AM WORTHY, DAMMIT! I MATTER! I AM A WIFE! I’M NOT JUST A FUCKBUDDY OR A SEMEN RECEPTACLE!”

Some man somewhere thought her worthy enough to put a ring on her finger, walk her down the aisle, say “I do” to her in front of her parents (esp. her daddy) and her friends (esp. her hot friends); pledge his entire life and fortune to her well-being and haaaaaaappiness; and give her one day out of her life that is All About Her.

That’s why it’s important. She wants to Be Important. She wants to Matter, to be Relevant, to have Value and Worth. Attention Must Be Paid. To Me, Me, Me.

“Romance” is simply showing that you value that woman and don’t view her as a whore to fuck.

When you know the girl is an unpaid whore, how the hell do you romance that? Romance is dead for the red pill man. That’s the ultimate price you pay for seeing the cold hard reality of human sexuality because you are forced to to surive in this fucked SMP.

Personally, I like honest women. These days I find myself more comfortable with ‘trashy’ girls because they are honest. They don’t put on airs. It feels more real. They don’t simply follow the herd mentality. If I see tattoos all over her arm, i’m immediately interested in knowing her. She’s into alt music or lifestyle, that’s a plus in my book.

It’s like I’ve given up on SWPL women and just want to cut through all the bullshit. I think at heart even though I grew up and work in SWPL land, I really gravitate towards the alternative. I think the upper middle class is as much of a blessing as it is a curse.

This phase is responsible for the “born-again virgins” movement, which is so laughable that it is barely worth ridicule.

It also reminds me about the parable about how the diligent stores up for winter, while the sluggard sleeps and slacks. Then, when winter comes, the sluggard’s need comes upon him like an armed man.

Women need to know, when they are young and sexy, that winter is coming, and their needs will be dire. Most of all, they need to know that the white-knights will not be there for her then. They like to rescue damsels, not nasty whores.

In seduction, you must treat a whore like a good girl, and a good girl like a whore.

Not much different then seducing married women (be the opposite of their husband which isn’t hard)

If you can stomach it.

There are guys that do this, a little older, they go around and act like they’re looking for a wife. They play the sucker for the female cons out there, and reel them in. Then the women rage afterwards, or feel betrayed.

It doesn’t take long for the “keep out of reach” girls to give in if they think they’re losing the mark.

This switch often gets re-thrown after she’s married, reverting back to her behavior in her 20’s. After about 15 years of married bliss she hits 45 and suddenly gets the urge to “Find herself”, generally in the arms of another man and invariably some “Soul mate” old boyfriend who treated her like crap from high school she hooks up with via facebook.

“This switch often gets re-thrown after she’s married, reverting back to her behavior in her 20′s. After about 15 years of married bliss she hits 45 and suddenly gets the urge to “Find herself”, generally in the arms of another man and invariably some “Soul mate” old boyfriend who treated her like crap from high school she hooks up with via facebook.”

All I can say is enjoy the decline (financially and otherwise) and decide if you want to practice polygamy; women in the not-so-distant-future will throw themselves at the most viable man when ish hits the fan.

I wish I could be more amazed right now that there’s so much anger and women bashing as a result of this article. Guys on this thread; if you’re wondering why women have been turning you down, I’m pretty sure that it’s NOT because you caught them during a different point in their cycle.

Everyone is responsible for doing their own introspection, and keeping themselves accountable for what they really think/feel (as well as the actual reasons they think/feel that way). I suggest you fellas “man up” and take another look in the mirror.

Women do not appreciate planned, romantic gestures. I’m sure this guy thought he was being brilliant by noticing how she cuts a cupcake – “girls like it when guys pay attention to the little things, ‘other guys’ don’t listen to women, I’ll show her I’m unique,..” What most men and all women don’t understand is that the things a woman finds romantic are rarely ever planned. Your sweaty t-shirt is more romantic to her than any candlelit evening. It’s the things you don’t think would ever be romantic that stick with her. In the same way you cannot negotiate genuine desire, likewise you cannot engineer genuine romance

When that interviewer said “Women deserve romance” it’s simply evidence of an expectation of a feminine defined romance. That ‘romance’ doesn’t exist – flowers, wine, candlelit evenings, strolling on the beach etc. – because all feminine concepts of romance have an element of male, preplanned contrivance to them, and therefore obligation to reciprocate them.

This doesn’t fit into women’s innate solipsism, so all of men’s romantic gestures will never be enough to satisfy her understanding of what romance really is. You cannot provoke a woman to feel genuine sentiment about you or something you did. It happens in a moment and it’s never planned. As Roissy has pointed out before, done with the right art, a bag of Skittles can produce a more memorable romantic experience for a woman than a planned out and expensive Caribbean cruise.

That’s not even the point of this article. Nobody here is complaining about not being able to pull, we are complaining that these women are soul sucking self-servering whores like the chick in the video that does a transformation conviently when she begins the decline into unattractiveness.

Why is it that women will always go ‘You are just losers that can’t get laid’ to every single article when a) that’s not even true and b) the post has nothing to do what that.

It’s just highlighting the complete and utter hypocrisy that these women pull with putting on the innocent angel act.

It’s the equivalent to some article on Jezebel about some handsome millionaire divorcing his aging wife to date hot 23 year old model. They would go insane.

@InfoMatron, I understand that in girl-world it’s difficult for women to dissociate anything objectively critical of the feminine from anger when it’s men doing the critique, but try to think of it less as anger and more as a discussion in precautionary information for men.

“Why is it that women will always go ‘You are just losers that can’t get laid’ to every single article when a) that’s not even true and b) the post has nothing to do what that.”

Just feminist bolierplate nonsense. Next up will be that we are “creepy”, “old bitter losers” who are over- compenstating with bad boy bluster because we’re all ashamed and terrified that we have “small dicks”.

Everyone is responsible for doing their own introspection, and keeping themselves accountable for what they really think/feel (as well as the actual reasons they think/feel that way).

I couldn’t agree with you more. So when a woman writes a book and goes on national TV to explain the process of her introspection it is incumbent upon me to critically dissect and consider the machinations behind that process and hold myself accountable for allowing her convenient rationales for it from affecting me.

:) But taterearl, don’t you know that womaning up means no longer being Strong and Independent®? This poor woman will instantly become a Doormat® upon which the bad mens will stomp all over, thereby negating in a nanosecond, any sense of You Go Grrrrrrl!® empowerment.

“don’t you know that womaning up means no longer being Strong and Independent®? This poor woman will instantly become a Doormat® upon which the bad mens will stomp all over, thereby negating in a nanosecond, any sense of You Go Grrrrrrl!® empowerment.”

Assuming that we’re talking strictly about “romance” as it is currently defined As Seen On TV:

The things that are viewed as romantic by much of our society are defined and determined by the companies that most greatly benefit from those ideas being adopted. Jewelry, greeting card, floral arrangement, stuffed animal, lingerie and travel businesses rake in billions because of this. Is it any wonder that many men are having trouble getting genuine affection using these methods? They weren’t created by women, they were created by marketing departments. And when you add the fact that many men use these methods simply as a way to reach an end goal (i.e. sex) rather than simply to do something nice, then these gestures might tend to evoke a mixture of varying levels of appreciation (“how nice that he’s doing this for me”), wariness (“is he doing this for ME as a person, or just because he wants sex?”), and expectations (“this is nice, but why is he just toeing the party line here and not coming up with something special/different? does he not care?”) instead of an uptick in pure affection. Is this fair to the guy who is genuinely trying to do something sweet and getting shot down a bit? No. But it is also not fair to expect all women to either have an automatic Like button or they’re just cold/boring/not worth your time/etc. Every person is going to bring something different to the table, whether male or female: plan accordingly, and accept that you don’t get to decide what anyone else’s reactions are going to be.

[Uh, yeah I covered this more than a year ago. My only disagreement would be in that it’s actually these companies’ response to supplying the demands of women’s perceived expectations or romance. You’ll just argue a chicken or the egg about where it originates, but I agree a strong marketeering element is in place.]

A note on “friendzoning”, since it came up:

I hate to break it to you, but… she doesn’t feel that way about you, and she’s under no obligation to. End of story. And honestly, you being bitter about that and using it as a reason/excuse to never do something nice for other women later on AND to paint all women as whores who have no right to complain after they’ve chosen someone else who didn’t work out just proves to me that she was probably right to pass you over. It’s not all about you, man.

[Yes, yes, we know all about accusations of bitter misogyny being the root of our desire to better understand women.]

@FuriousFerret:

1. The derogatory use of “girl-world” in this context automatically frames your argument. The fact that you don’t see it only reinforces my previous mirror-looking statement.

2. So far on this thread I see several examples of women being called names for sleeping with men, being called names for choosing not to sleep with men, being called names for trying to re-evaluate why they are personally not falling into what society has deemed as “the right path”, [Actually it’s Hephzibah’s own self-expectations not society’s] being called names for being previously married, being called names for never having been married… and you don’t feel that is coming from a place of anger? Please, enlighten me as to why you personally believe that women deserve to be insulted and derided for *any* of these choices. Note: no answer is required if you also believe derogatory things for men making all of these same choices.

3. “Precautionary”, I see… so using that logic, I should infer from your posts on this thread that all men are moronic sex hounds who automatically hate things like getting married and having kids, and who would never enter such relationships with anyone over 30. Is that really how you see yourself? If so, I feel sorry for you.

[I’ll answer both of these questions here by saying no I don’t think their estimations are coming from a place of anger directed towards women. If they’re angry about anything it’s rooted in the fact that they’ve believed the lies that a fem-centric acculturation conditioned them to believe for so long – the same lies you hope to perpetuate by shaming men into not making an attempt to better understand women. No one on this blog hates women, if they did their indifference wouldn’t make reading it worthwhile.

Truth told it’s women like you who are scared shitless, not about any perceived anger, but that the precautions on this blog and others like it represent a Threat in revealing a social structure you’d rather men not be made aware of. Make sure you read a bit more here before you pop off again. I’ve covered a lot of ground long before you became aware of my blog, and you’ll just find yourself outclassed.]

the woman in the clip is ruined. as a guy, i value sweetness, kindness and innocence as qualities for a relationship that will be sustainable in a girl, and i think that she is trying to reclaim those qualities by taking on a different strategy which involves publicly professing her celibacy to get that, but its like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube, once innocence is gone its not coming back. she spewed it away and it will be extremely hard for her to play her way into a lifelong fulfilling relationship, I wouldn’t say she’s hit the wall very hard yet, but its hard to imagine what she’ll be like five years from now so her next few years will be probably be the most important of her life.

“Please, enlighten me as to why you personally believe that women deserve to be insulted and derided for *any* of these choices. ”

Because you are causing the downfall of western civlization you fucking morons.

Women wanting a career for God know what reasons, when I am basically forced to have a career because as guy I have to earn to have any type of value to society. Women have it simply because some ugly warpigs convinced the rest of the herd that careers were awesome simply because said warpigs had to work because no decent guy wanted them.

You are taking away jobs from men that don’t just want them but need to them.

Also when you slut around and have bastards you drain the state and create a new generation of mangina feminzed men that become unhappy when they grow up into perversions of masculinity.

A final reason I shame your choices is that you feminist don’t even take responsibility for these shitty choices and instead use beta men to get kids and then divorce for cash and prizes.

I think those are all very good reasons that careerist ultra naracisstic women need to be shamed and called names, so other good women don’t follow in your footsteps.

“I hate to break it to you, but… she doesn’t feel that way about you, and she’s under no obligation to. End of story. And honestly, you being bitter about that and using it as a reason/excuse to never do something nice for other women later on AND to paint all women as whores who have no right to complain after they’ve chosen someone else who didn’t work out just proves to me that she was probably right to pass you over. It’s not all about you, man.”

This is fun.

I hate to break it to you, but … he doesn’t love you and he isn’t going to marry you. He never did and he never will, and he’s under no obligation to. You are a sex partner to him — a role for which you willingly gave yourself and your most valuable attribute. You’ve been used because you let them use you. End of story.

And honestly, you being bitter about that and using it as a reason/excuse to use a man, marry him for his resources, pop out a couple of kids and then frivorce him because you’re not haaaappy AND coming onto a Game/manosphere/Man’s improvement blog and complain about men warning other men about exactly that phenomenon just proves to me that we are right about you. It’s all about you, InfoMatron.

I suppose the male equivalent of this would be a man who was a multi-millionaire at 22 who blew all his money on supermodels and finds himself broke at 35. Now with no money in the bank and a $20/hr factory job, he’s suddenly willing to consider the ordinary women he ignored back when he was rich and could pull 9s and 10s.

the man, with enough hard work and perseverance, can recover.

the woman, on the other hand, cannot unhit the wall. she cannot unride the carousel.

I hate to break it to you, but… she doesn’t feel that way about you, and she’s under no obligation to.”

Then encourage your feminista sistas to be honest about that instead of mealymouthing it with “Let’s just be friends”. I’d have more respect for women if they’d just say what they really mean, which is

“I don’t like you, you’re disgusting and the thought of having sex with you is making me throw up in my mouth. Please, I’m trying to let you down easy in a way that doesn’t make me look like a total bitch. So can we just walk away and pretend that this never happened, OK?”

InfoMatron: “The things that are viewed as romantic by much of our society are defined and determined by the companies that most greatly benefit from those ideas being adopted….Is it any wonder that many men are having trouble getting genuine affection using these methods?”

Yes it is because these were the very things that worked for our mothers, grandmothers, and before that. The fact that women react cynically, indifferently, or with hostility to age-old tradition is proof that feminism and the culture of entitlement has poisoned their souls.

Also, marketing execs did not DEVISE things like jewelry and flowers — read your Shakespeare or Dickens, they were around a way, way long time ago.

Let’s look at the opposite of what you said. What if someone said “Today’s men won’t react well to sexy lingerie, a home-cooked meal, and cold beer!” The response would rightfully be: what the HELL happened to men then?

Oh man, this is just getting good and I have to go. :( Well, I’ll just man-up® on the way home from work. Maybe check my trap line, and shoot a couple of pheasants or a wild turkey for supper tonite. You know, the usual stuff.

If one was to flip through the Sunday papers and pause at the wedding photos and scan the ages you can see evidence of the woman who has successfully found an out at this juncture of her life.
The couples where she is around 30, plus or minus a few years and he is almost always younger and green looking.
She is mostly a bit better looking then he could have wished for (even though she shows signs of looking tired, a choice cut of mutton – possibly a little smoked, sun dried and pickled – but hey in a way I am sure he counts himself lucky in the looks department).
Looking under the hood she usually comes with little or no assets, multiple credit cards which are maxed out, a history of slut like cock hoping – but the extended break from it as mentioned above – she is practically a virgin again now. A real catch.

Two important things InfoMatron is missing. (and yes, I admit to being angry–I devoted most of my life to doing what I thought was right by women and got NOTHING in return)

1. As loud as she bitches about us, I bet just about any of the dudes here could easily bang her if they met her in person, however…

2. She’s exactly the type of woman we want to avoid. We don’t give a damn what she thinks because she’s obviously obnoxious and unpleasant. If she’s physically attractive (which I doubt), she’d be good for a pump and dump at best. If she’s not, there’s no reason in the slightest to have anything to do with her.

Roosh has a phenomenal write-up today on the decline of American women. InfoMatron epitomizes it.

“For women I’d put having sex as much of an accomplishment as breathing or eating.” -taterearl

This is something I’ve been thinking about lately, regarding sex, gatekeeping, power, and manipulation in relationships…

(InfoMatron, you might want to skip to the next post….)

The real magic of sex is my erection.

A woman can choose to have sex even if her body doesn’t feel like it. She’s DTF but a bit dry? Just keep pushing, it’ll go in eventually. In ascending order of preference, spit, lube, or virgin coconut oil can ease entry. The act can be performed.

A girl can be shitface drunk, dehydrated and dry, yet still want to get it on… and if you’re the guy who got drunk with her, you better hope you can make it work. If it does, you’re a hero, and HER self-esteem is buoyed. If it doesn’t… well, you both feel like failures.

What this means, in terms of relationship dynamics, is that women are nearly 100% guaranteed of a man’s sincere desire when they couple, which is THE singular act of pair-bonding.

A man has no such guarantee. Most guys are so happy the woman AGREED to have sex with him, and so intoxicated by their own desire, that they don’t really notice much in the moment (this is truly being swept away, by the way).

When you stop to think about it, this affords women a HUGE margin of leeway, should they choose to approach the relationship from the perspective of maximizing their self-interest. By using the act of sex as a bargaining chip, it can be a Pavlovian incentivizer (a carrot), or an invisible string attached to his limbic system (a stick), and with one tug she can override his rational cortex. For such women – and rare is the woman who never succumbs to the urge – it’s like playing poker against someone whose hand you can see.

If a man wants to have sex – and has the opportunity – but his dick doesn’t work, he can become inconsolable, depressed, or worse. The entire machinery can be a mystery, even to him.

I say THIS is where the real “Mystique” is. The act of sex – and the continuation of the species – CANNOT happen without genuine masculine desire. THIS is what is of immense value.

But somehow, so many of us have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed to believe the exact opposite: that our desire is repulsive, worthy of ridicule, and something to be ashamed of.

I was responding directly to a comment made about “friendzoning”: you are making quite a few erroneous assumptions about me and attempting to insult me with them while completely sidestepping what I said (and, added bonus, finishing up with a value judgement based on said erroneous information). If you really need to make yourself feel like you’re “winning” a discussion by making things up and ignoring what the other person has to say, then there’s not really a point in continuing, is there?

@Days of Broken Arrows:

You bring up some intriguing points, and without trying to project false images onto me in an effort to make your case seem more valid. I appreciate that, thank you.

“Yes it is because these were the very things that worked for our mothers, grandmothers, and before that. The fact that women react cynically, indifferently, or with hostility to age-old tradition is proof that feminism and the culture of entitlement has poisoned their souls.”

I can see where it would seem that way, but I disagree that it is true for all women.

1. Things in that line which “worked” on women in previous generations often had underlying attachments that women today do not have: for example, if you are a woman in the 1950’s, you don’t have many options for a life beyond choosing a mate and having children. There is also a huge stigma attached to anyone who goes outside of convention with regard to dating activities, but this is especially true for women. So if a man expresses interest by bringing chocolates, you have to be gracious and delighted or you potentially ruin your future chances… not to mention that you’d have no idea that there were other options out there besides chocolates. In the case of “things that worked” no longer working for everyone, I would say that a bigger culprit is access to an amazing array of options rather than feminism. Who would want a burger every day if you suddenly find out that you could get sushi or pumpkin ravioli instead?

2. The problem with wanting tradition to always be what is done is that people don’t always realize that not everyone wanted that tradition to begin with. As our world becomes bigger and more connected, more and more people are coming to find out that they don’t *have* to do things the old way anymore. That can be scary for those who wish to continue on that path, but I think it is both dangerous and saddening that many use that fear to shut out everyone who no longer agrees with them… especially when that fear is distilled down into finding an easy scapegoat such as “feminism” and “culture of entitlement”.

3. And on that note: “feminism” gets thrown around fairly often as a boogieman for a lot of things, but since all it is really supposed to encompass is the idea that women are full and equal human beings with men (mostly when the discussion about pay for work and rights come up), I have a hard time understanding why this is the case. Do men really and truly have a problem with women being treated equally, and being equal control over themselves and their own lives? If so, why? And no I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I honestly don’t understand.

4. On to “culture of entitlement”: this is a problem that spans MANY categories, and has many sources… I think a lot of it goes back to the big connected world thing again, especially when you add that the US has a societal structure that is practically based on instant gratification. But I have to wonder: why is a woman not accepting a man’s tokens of affection a feeling of entitlement, but the man feeling that he is owed something for giving that token not a feeling of entitlement? Again, not trying to be inflammatory, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

5. “Also, marketing execs did not DEVISE things like jewelry and flowers — read your Shakespeare or Dickens, they were around a way, way long time ago.” Yes, it’s true… though to be fair, he often had quotes about EVERYone getting flowers :) For example:

“Here’s flowers for you;
Hot lavender, mints, savoury, marjoram;
The marigold, that goes to bed wi’ the sun
And with him rises weeping: these are flowers
Of middle summer, and I think they are given
To men of middle age.
The Winter’s Tale (4.4.122-7)”

Sorry, tangent. I’m not saying that the idea of giving flowers is a brand new one, simply that the current obsession that our society has with it is. Valentines Day is a great example of this: it started as a religious holiday for a martyr. Chaucer really got the idea of it being a love-related thing going in the middle ages, but even then there was no expectation of people to run out and spend tons of money on their loved one… in fact, spending money for that day at all didn’t really start until the 19th century (and even then it wasn’t until much more recently that money being spent beyond cards and flowers was expected by anyone). And if you really sit down and look into any of the industries involved now in Valentine’s Day expectations, you will see that none of them started with women demanding things… they started with companies/industries trying to convince women that they should demand them.

And of course, I have to add here that anyone (male or female) who demands tokens of affection at any time need to sit back and re-evaluate what’s important in life. But I digress.

6. “Let’s look at the opposite of what you said. What if someone said “Today’s men won’t react well to sexy lingerie, a home-cooked meal, and cold beer!” The response would rightfully be: what the HELL happened to men then?”

Not necessarily, since this is a set of stereotypes that doesn’t actually apply to all men. For every guy you show me that falls into this category, I can show you two (or more) who think most lingerie is boring, gourmet trumps home-cooked, and beer is gross. I can show you men who love nothing more than to see their gal in pajama pants playing video games with them. I can show you men who think the pinnacle of sexiness is a lady sitting down hard on a birthday cake (seriously, go look on youtube). I can show you men who want club girls wearing nothing but duct tape on their nipples and some fishnet tights: I can show you men who love women who costume play wearing neck-to-ankle Victorian costumes. I can go on for hours on all the different things that I’ve seen men want that have nothing to do at all with the stereotype that you’ve described… and I can still say that there is nothing wrong with what you’ve described, either. Everyone is different, and everyone wants different things… trying to cram everyone into one category and getting mad when they don’t fit seems like a giant waste of time and energy.

7. “So I ask: “What the hell happened to women?””

Honestly, I think a better question is: where the hell are you looking for women that you only find ones that disappoint you? It’s obviously not the right place, so… maybe branching out a bit might solve this problem. There are billions of people in the world, and I feel quite confident in saying that everyone here has the opportunity to find one that is a good fit for them. Even ferret, which I believe is saying something. ;)

It’s been fun, guys. Do yourselves a favour: try to use introspection instead of anger, and thoughtfulness instead of false accusation/expectation when it comes to dealing with other people… and vary up your routine if something isn’t working for you. I guarantee that it’ll be a lot more helpful than just getting mad at every woman you’ve never met, and who knows? Maybe you’ll get lucky in the end.

lol, infomatron’s the same guy who’s trolled here previously from his cubicle at the dell call center in bangalore. you may remember him from such aliases as ‘hopeless romantic’, ‘sexual marxism’, and more recently on heartsie’s as ‘feministx’.

@infomatron
my dell laptop is making these beeping sounds when i hit the power button. the screen stays black and the fans spin up really fast like a jet engine and it stays like that. thanks for any help bro.

I assume the above Gawker link will leave them open to a lawsuit. As far as I know, you can lampoon public figures but doing so to individuals is considered libel, because you can damage their reputation and livelihoods. IMO putting a profile on OKCupid doesn’t make you a public figure.

If anyone knows better, please let me know.

And if it’s not illegal, then I request that this blog do the same with women’s profiles, many of which are far worse than the ones of guys Gawker pictured.

1. Your statement of “Who would want a burger every day if you suddenly find out that you could get sushi or pumpkin ravioli instead?” only proves the entire point of this post. Women in their 20s have been gorging themselves on sushi and pumpkin ravioli which they really can’t afford, then settling for a lifetime of the burgers they actually CAN afford around age 30. You won’t get the metaphor; but the men will.

Enjoy your “options” — that is, until you find they are no longer options.

2. Traditions become so because they work best for the greatest number of people. Now we no longer have them, so only a few are getting what they want.

3. feminism is about female supremacy, economic freedom (so women don’t have to be accountable to a husband); female sexual freedom (so women can have promiscuous, judgment-free and consequence-free sex with hot alpha men outside marriage); and abortion rights. Feminism has not been about female “equality” for at least 60 years.

4. It’s not the refusal of tokens of affection or feeling that you’re “owed something for giving that token”. It’s the dishonesty. It’s the fraud. It’s the total lack of insight and understanding. It’s the abject cruelty. It’s women saying “we want nice guys” then rejecting nice guys in favor of fucking the guitar player.

(I am getting so fucking tired of explaining this. )

5. Fine by me.

6. You’re looking at the trees and missing the forest. Don’t miss the larger point which is: women changed. Men have not.

7. Where are these “good women” you speak of? Not at work. We’re barred from dating them. Not in church. Their expectations are ridiculously high. Not friends of friends. They all want superalphas. Not in public. They all want superalphas too.

@InfoTroll: “And on that note: “feminism” gets thrown around fairly often as a boogieman for a lot of things, but since all it is really supposed to encompass is the idea that women are full and equal human beings with men (mostly when the discussion about pay for work and rights come up), I have a hard time understanding why this is the case. Do men really and truly have a problem with women being treated equally, and being equal control over themselves and their own lives? If so, why? And no I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I honestly don’t understand.”

Feminism is not about legal equality. It’s about sticking to to The Man. Equality means equality, not an exalted legal status.

If feminism were about equality, then there would be no federal legislation about sexual politics in the workplace. Men have been slugging it out against various forms of unfairness and discrimination for, well, as long as there has been work. Men deal with it, and receive the market price for their labor. Men were not expected to either accept the terms of employment on the open market, and live by the employer’s rules, or go out and start your own business. But when women entered the workplace, suddenly we needed Big Daddy Gubmint to come along and micromanage everyone’s managerial decision-making and incomes, and men were forced to BEND THE KNEE and comply with this week’s political imperatives. Women got special protection.

No-Fault divorce is another one. Divorcing women reflexively get the children and half of the assets of the man, plus alimony in some places, just by walking down to the courthouse and demanding it. If the man does not want his family to be destroyed, he has no say, and cannot prevent it. Before feminist divorce rule, if a man were to do this, it would be considered abandonment, and the woman would get it all. But a woman can now unilaterally abandon a marriage, and yet still take all of its benefits with her, at any time. The man cannot recover from his wife all of the things he has given to her throughout the marriage, nor can he be compensated for everything he had sacrificed in order to maintain the marital life. After all, the sacrifices that a man makes in order to be married are INVISIBLE to the feminine imperative, but a woman’s “sacrifices” (i.e., opting out of the workforce to bear children) MUST BE PAID FOR, and the ex-husband is the one who must pay. To do so, the man’s contribution to the marriage (money, resources) is divided and one-half of it all is given to the wife. However, the woman’s contributions to the marriage (loyalty, affection, etc.) can be terminated at will, with no corresponding loss of marital benefits.

No, Phinn. If you don’t agree with Info, you’re obviously a woman hating, misogynistic, chauvinist pig who wants to chain women to stoves and keep them barefoot and pregnant.

You obviously are a “NiceGuy”(TM) that expects hot women to love you because you brought her a box of chocolates. If you were HAWWWT, the woman would be blowing you in the bar bathroom. But because you’re not HAWWT in her estimation, you’re “creepy” and “not entitled” to anything from a woman.

It’s not about women demanding what they want and demanding that laws be changed to accommodate their every whim. No, it’s just such a big world out there that people have so many “options”. It’s because we’re an “instant gratification society”. That’s the real problem, Phinn, you doofus. Yeah, a woman can go to a bar, pick out the man she wants to fuck, and she’ll be going home with him that night. But it’s your fault, Phinn, because you want “instant gratification”.

True enough. The point isn’t that women have a duty to sleep with nice but unattractive men who are sexually interested in them; that’s a ridiculous straw man and a non sequitor to boot. It’s that women will say they want one type of man, and then reject that very type of man in favor of someone who’s quite the opposite. And then later complain that they can’t find any men like the ones they friend-zone left and right.

So eventually unsuccessful men adapt and adjust to this, and start giving women what they really want, instead of what they say they want but really don’t. Once they do this they start having more success — more lays, more ONS, more FWB, more STRs — so they keep on doing it. And that’s why we have lots of casual encounters and flings, but few truly meaningful relationships.

Sure, NAWALT and all, but I have very little empathy for most of the women who lament the end of romance and traditional courtship, because they were most likely among the vast majority of women who contributed to its demise by rejecting the men who offered it to them, and instead chose the men who did not.

And the NAWALTs would do well to blame their sluttier sisters for this change, because they outnumber them, and it’s their choices that are driving this market. It’s like Gresham’s law applied to the SMP; the bad currency is chasing out the good.

Hephzibah Anderson reminds me of a particular kind of kid caught shoplifting or committing some other sort of crime. He’s not sorry for committing the crime per se. He’s just sorry he got caught–that the cops showed up to remind him of the unalterable fact that actions entail consequences.

I dunno. Maybe in that interview Anderson indeed says she truly laments her time on the carousel. But for most women i know, the hamster has to thread between an odd Charybdis and Scylla–two menacing psychological forces. She can’t condemn her own past promiscuity entirely. And never can she reveal it to her beta-provider. That would involve admitting she was stupid and wrong, that sex-positive feminism is an oxymoron. But likewise she can’t extol the behavior as so empowering that it’s worthy of continuation. So, she expresses herself instead in euphemisms. She says, for example, that her past “was a wonderful time of learning,” but that it’s now “just not working for her” anymore. Nice! The hamster keeps on running; sanity is preserved.

This term “nice guy” has been alluded to a few times on here. I’m just wondering what constitutes one. Is “nice guy” merely a euphemism? Say a man was considered boring. Girls would label him as this even if he isn’t actually nice, right? Is it just how a guy acts?

If a man was short, fat, broke, average-looking, he’d just be called a “nice guy” and that’s that, right? Or is it a guy who can’t say no because that’s apparently something a woman doesn’t respect even if she can benefit big from being with a wimp like him?

Maybe I’m just way off. Is it the character or the benefit a woman can deride from him? Which one makes a “nice guy?”

I feel like a gay for even pointing this out (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but I think guys have it wrong when they say women can have sex whenever they want and guys can’t.

The problem isn’t so clear-cut. Guys could have sex whenever they want, it would just have to be with some very undesirable women. Women can have sex whenever they want, but they also face a dilemma: they can’t always demand the attention of non-committing alphas they desire, and even if they could they won’t get what they really want – commitment.

This doesn’t change the fact that lack of sex, even if it’s just foregoing sex with a landbeast, is incredibly frustrating for men in a way that it never will be for women. However, we miss a subtle point when we don’t recognize that men could have sex a lot more frequently if they wanted.

Namely, that the frustration really isn’t with the lack of sex, per se, but rather with the internalized shame that goes along with not being able to attract the desirable women that they were told they would attract if only they would make themselves as unattractive as possible (being beta).

In which case, it might be more useful to track the frustration back to failing to be attractive by doing as they were told, and not understanding why playing by the rules is failing for them. The sex is secondary.

Don’t tell that to women though who get outraged because they’re worried that these men feel “entitled” to their vaginas, because men are unthinking and uncaring cardboard robots with no depth who we don’t need to bother empathizing with. (If I sound bitter, it’s because I just got out of a conversation with a woman on this very topic and all she could do is parrot, “This is an entitlement mentality!” instead of actually trying to understand the bigger picture).

Great Article Rollo, I enjoy these types of post because I seem to be running into these women a lot now a days maybe it’s because I’m in my late 20’s and now I understand the dynamic more than ever.

Deti also hit the nail on the head, all those quotes you see those headlines on your Plenty of Fail dating websites etc, girls who have been shitted on, it’s amazing once you understand and are able to disscet women’s double speak.

Not the jack the post, but I recently hung out with one of these types. She was early 30’s, degree, hit the wall(broke), no kids blah blah, no car, works at a church but not spiritual. The deal breaker was when she told me about her cock carousling past, I have a way of getting women to let their guards down I guess (moscato+candles and pretending I give a shit) but to see her face, when she confessed all the years she wasted on bad boys/thugs who she knew weren’t shit and see the hurt in her eyes. there was part of me that felt, she looked so broken. I could have fucked her played her like the rest but there would have been no joy, the girl was broken. I had never seen a woman that broken, to the point where she said

“Solo I’m ready for a good guy now, a guy like you, and I do wanna get married…”

I shit you not, it took everything in my power to play it cool cause I knew I had a stage 5 clinger grenade bitty booper on my hands.

I dropped her of later that night and never spoke to her again and I’m not gonna tell you about the 25 year old from last night who….

IrishFarmer: I agree that guys could have more sex if they had no standards, but women would still have more. Furthermore, women are less likely to lower their standards until the wall smacks them upside the head.

I forgot the study, but somewhere I read that when men are in an environment with very few attractive women, they simply lower their standards. When women are around no attractive men, they keep their standards high.

I’ve seen this phenomenon both in Korea in the Army and while living in an engineering school college town in Germany. In both cases, you’d see buff model-looking dudes with some serious cows. In Korea, it was “Queen for a Year”, and damn it really was.

@MNL: “She says, for example, that her past ‘was a wonderful time of learning,’ but that it’s now “just not working for her” anymore. Nice! The hamster keeps on running; sanity is preserved.” Great point. There are no mistakes, just “learninig experiences.”

“It’s been fun, guys. Do yourselves a favour: try to use introspection instead of anger, and thoughtfulness instead of false accusation/expectation when it comes to dealing with other people… and vary up your routine if something isn’t working for you. I guarantee that it’ll be a lot more helpful than just getting mad at every woman you’ve never met, and who knows? Maybe you’ll get lucky in the end. Ciao!”

@InfoTroll

Don’t be cunty. Nobody here is going to take your point seriously if you group everyone here into a category and then use communication tactics little girls use on each other by pretending to dismiss the blog and that you’ll never read it again by saying Bye! Stay awhile, you’ll find that most of us here love women more than women love each other, we’re just trying to figure out why the majority of you are bat-shit crazy and behave the way they do.

@InfoTroll – a pretty good attempt at shaming and pressing our buttons (the classic female Blame Shame Maim game). I especially enjoyed the twisting little dig of the patronising final words: “Maybe you’ll get lucky in the end.”

It did get under some of our skins, as evidenced by some of us bothering to attempt to explain to you the reasons for how we are. Even though we should know better than attempting to explain anything in a logical manner to a solipsistic female. Because we know that it simply isn’t possible, it’s like explaining taste to a dead man (and the response we get from women is about as comprehensible).

I must personally thank you from the bottom of my heart for the extra practice at ignoring the shaming/twisting language which spews from a woman’s mouth as a matter of course. I know it is an automatic reflex on your (as in, you women’s) behalf for each other. Keep it up, it’s definitely good for us all.

@Rollo
That was fun lol She’s banned me yet again. I wrote a whole rebuttal quoting pualingo for each step of her description of that guy’s pickup an’ everything! :'( I hope you do an article about that whole gongshow.

A common theme in the ‘sphere is that a woman wastes the best years of her 20s enjoying the alpha carousel before hitting the wall in her 30s when she starts looking for a provider. I’m really curious as to how prevalent this is. I’m wondering what percentage of single women did the carousel thing versus having a few LTRs that didn’t work out, or any other number of possibilities. Going by the comments I read, it seems like EVERY single woman in her 30s has taken the same path of 20s – carousel, 30s – stable provider seeking.

On the topic of careers: I don’t understand why having a career is such an appeal. The working world can be a brutal, competitive place where we battle it out and deal with crap day in, day out. If working is so great, then why does someone have to bribe (pay) us so that we drag our asses out of bed every morning to go to work? Women who are sold the idea that having a career is a boatload of fun are being sold a bill of goods.

Rollo, keep up the good work. Discovering you, Dalrock, CH, and others really opened my eyes.

“On the topic of careers: I don’t understand why having a career is such an appeal.”

It’s not. But it’s what women today (and in the past few generations) were raised to do. So they do it. The Army is also no fun, but boys who come from “military families” are expected to serve.

I remember calling a girl circa 1998. Her sis answered and said she couldn’t take my call because he dad was yelling at her about “what she was going to do with her life.” I didn’t question this then. But today I would.

Anyway…she was a cutie at 20, considered one of the hottest young reporters on the DC scene circa 2005 and I just Googled her now. BANG! Hit the wall. Looks like her mom (who was NOT a MILF). Had someone married her, let’s say, in 2000, he would not have noticed “the wall” because they would have been growing old together. But guys who sees her now for the first time don’t see the hot teen they used to know but the rather tired-looking working girls who has seen too many long days and strange penises.

This is an important element of mating people seem to miss — when growing together old we see who we used to see in the person we love. But since people rarely meet and marry circa ages 18-25, this crucial bonding step is removed from the mating process and it affects women the most, since they’re judged more on looks.

So anyway, her dad’s advice helped her win the battle but lose the war, so to speak. She didn’t think to question it. Multiply that by millions and you have women today in the 30-40 age bracket saying “WTF happened with my life?!?!”

“Nice guy” in the feminist sphere has a specific meaning. It means a man who treats women well, showering her with gifts and attention, doting on her, but it’s all a Trojan horse to get sex. In this narrative he plays nice, but when the inevitable LJBF happens, he goes ballistic. He threatens her, stalks her, trash talks her to other guys and to her friends, calls her a bitch, etc. According to the feminist narrative, this “niceguy” isn’t really a nice guy at all, but is a creepy, threatening, potential rapist/murderer who feels entitled to sex with her because he was “nice” and kind and deferential.

Yeah, I call bullshit on that. It’s just more hamsterbation to avoid admitting that they are only turned on by Alpha’s. There has been so much bad press lately in response to ” where have all the good men gone” articles they are scrambling to find an excuse for not dating guys who don’t bend them over garbage cans behind the club.They are finally being called on Hypergamy and they don’t like it a bit.

An interesting point to ponder on that topic, from the Danimal archive:

For a woman. Does it occur to you that your surplus of possibilities and choices can only exist if a corresponding number of men have a shortfall of possibilities and choices? Learn something about how markets work. If the market is great for farmers, it is terrible for people who buy food from farmers. If the average woman has many more sexual opportunities than she cares to pursue, that means the average man is having many of his desires for sex frustrated. Therefore he is putting all those opportunities out there for multiple women who aren’t taking them. His poverty creates their environment of plenty. If the numbers of men and women are comparable, how can such an imbalance exist? Simple: men want sex more than women want sex.

Basically, the casual sex market favors most women and works against most men. To put it another way, men generally want sex more than women, and are much more eager to make “sales” than women are, so women can get great deals from men when they finally decide to “buy” — i.e.,they can often get sex from a man who outranks them, if all they want is sex. See the example Martel mentioned above. Meanwhile the cows’ male SMV equivalents in this situation don’t have any women to pair off with (hence the male incel issue).

Also consider all the books, blogs and PUA seminars devoted to helping men get laid. Clearly there’s quite a market for them because there are quite a few guys who have a lot of trouble getting laid. Meanwhile there are no such blogs or seminars for women giving them advice on getting laid, because there’s simply no market for them. A woman who is celibate is so by choice; if she really wants to get laid she’ll be able to. For a lot of men though this simply isn’t the case.

The one big advantage that men have is that there’s a lot more that they can do to improve their SMP situations — practice game, hit the gym, make money, learn to play guitar, build social proof, etc. While there isn’t as much a woman can do to improve her chances a great deal, unless she’s obese and loses a lot of weight.

Yeah, from my experience most normal women (i.e. not feminists) use the term “nice guy” to refer to good, decent men who don’t offend them but don’t turn them on either. It’s a polite term for guys they don’t find very attractive.

In other words, it’s not that these men are unattractive because they’re nice, necessarily — rather, women call them “nice” because they don’t think they’re attractive.

George Clooney seems like a pretty nice man, but do you think “nice” is the first word that women think of when his name is mentioned? Probably not.

I work with the Harpie anderson types, and every day is a new reason for “why i’m amazing (cue false confidence boosts from chorus of de wymmnz), and how he doesn’t deserve me (blah blah male shaming)”. Then they ask me why I do not pursue these prized dolls. With my red pill frames, all I see are walled up walrus wenches.

“@infomatron
my dell laptop is making these beeping sounds when i hit the power button. the screen stays black and the fans spin up really fast like a jet engine and it stays like that. thanks for any help bro.”

Very timely. Rather than comment on the theory, I’ll share my recent experience and my reaction.

I gamed a 28 year old only child, entitled girl. First date she was grilling me about my sexual openness and whether I was serious about relationships etc etc etc. I stated: “With the right person, anything can happen.” Deflected her shit tests, moved in for the k-close.

This sparked serious attraction. Second date, amped it up. She was still talking about being ‘Very cautious” etc etc…but had a major make out in a bar and street and then she confessed various kinky preferences under the premise of us “asking questions of each other.”

What followed was the ASD, rationalization hamster in overdrive. She accused me bascially of being a player.

I employed “Outraged sensibility game”: ie: You are judgemental, entitled, what do you have to offer? etc etc?

This resulted in major reversal. She apologized for 3 days. Using one word game, i met up with her for drinks. Then banged her in the most kinky ways possible.

Then finally after some back and forth, I get a massive text from her. She’s “Cried” and then asks whether I care. My response was aloof.

Then me: “Don’t sabotage a good thing by being weird.”

She replies with a massive explanation that the reason she cried was that she had a “Friends with benefits” thing with her ex, then a few days ago, this ex said he was leaving the country. She suddenly got panic attacks and was said. She needs to be on her own, she’s mentally screwed up etc etc etc.

My response: “oh. interesting. thx”

Clearly she was projecting her own slutty behaviours and penchant for kinky sex onto me as though I was some pervert and she was some innocent doe-eyed girl.

The reality was she was banging her ex and banged me and that triggered something inside her or whatever.

I passed all the shit tests and then left her to flip out as she wished.

I didn’t know why she was protesting and projecting so much about the Player vibe she insinuated i was putting out and what appeared to be ASD/Buyer’s remorse was actually some deeper, rawer self-loathing.

Without game, I would have asked her what was wrong…i would have apologized, i would have entered her frame.

Intimacy I can understand, but the need for security and provisioning? I can’t understand this from a successful, modern woman. With more then half of all college/uni degrees going to the modern woman, and their ability to scale the highest peaks in business, why would they br needing security and provisioning?